pull down to refresh

Like this one?
ca3f7710e96aa78e75e74493e81d2d7139f58643aae2862bce156bf769132eff
or this one?
b58fab12684b5b3586f45b29380c866f20b16c4a91a351e941b881dfafe0d809
or
7b3b4d0990e0a95a6b9e7d9927031802aa4423b93eaf7e791949e3c6717292e8
or especially
f3c1fb83ab8914772e7ebb6cad4a1e879fdf1c1dd43b9d6876ca628ec0684eb4
Note this last one... has over 1000 outputs, all but 2 of which are 330 sats. The others? One op_return for a 'runestone' (transferring a memecoin?) with 0 sats. And the remainder ~ 131k sats.
Note that the transaction fee was ~ 170k sats at ~ 2 sats/vb with... a total 'sent' amount of ~ 800k sats. In other words this transaction wasn't 'economical' total fee/size.

Note that none of these transactions added arbitrary data to "the witness" using an inscription. And none of them had an 'nft' or jpeg... yet they all aren't actually monetary and they all (especially the last one) bloat the UTXO set tremendously with dust.
The amounts of money moved around in such a way... aren't economical. These aren't 'payments'. It's not even about... creating 'spendable' UTXOs for later 'monetary' consumption or having small Bitcoin-bills.
And the amount of 'arbitrary data' in the one op_return is minuscule... literally the name of a memecoin.
All that being said how does filtering actually stop this?
There are blocks and blocks of transactions like this, especially at low (1-3) fee rates.

Op_return has been around for... 10 years? So there is nothing new in these transactions except Taproot/Segwit (IIUC) to make their 'batching' cheaper? But that's desirable anyway for "real" money-like transactions?
In other words, how does 'fixing the filters' prevent or slow transactions like this? Assuming that > 90 % of nodes would need to dismiss op_return outright to prevent these transactions... how is that going to be achieved when op_return has been the default for so long?
In summary, there is no shortage of people wanting to 'fix the filters' and 'purify Bitcoin' for monetary purposes only.
They're all over social media.
Except that when you actually look at blocks... there's no easy way of 'filtering' transactions that people want that the protocol clearly allows.
After all, there's no 'gold-standard' for memecoins. No-one cares about this stuff. But clearly memecoin-ers are willing to spend on it... making it that much more difficult to stop.
44cc4b35b70e356b611823ee50a25aa25341d9fdc02ddc1e362ba7493fd1d9f9
A little less grievance and a little more 'practical solutions' from the is-monetary crowd would be helpful.
once you fix the filters, you will have fix the things that need to be fixed with the filters. then you will have to fix more filters and coordinate amongst all the different filter list providers.
welcome to email.
reply
that... doesnt make any sense.
or wait are you saying the filters can't be fixed?
reply
All the anti-spam arguments in my opinion start to fall apart... When there are < 2 blocks of transactions at 1 sat/vb.
reply
I think those 330 sats outputs are from anchor outputs of pending to close channels. 330 sats is the usual amount for these anchors waiting to be sweeped.
Here is a great article about anchor outputs by @fanis https://fanismichalakis.fr/posts/anchor-outputs/
reply
i don't think so. The outputs include a runes output for creating memecoins.
I highly doubt they're doing anything with lightning and creating the dog go to the moon memecoin.
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @fanis 4 May
Thanks for you kind words @DarthCoin :blush:
In that case I don't think they're anchor outputs. The 330 sats for anchors comes from the fact that it's the dust limit for this kind of output (i.e. the smallest standard amount). Here, they use the same amount to ensure standardness of their transaction, but from the look of it I'd wager they're encoding arbitrary data into the addresses (thus making the output unspendable).
reply
Thanks
reply
great totally yes so let's help these people get what they want
reply
that doesn't make sense. ban op_return! and transactions like this keep happening in mass in order to create memecoins at 330 sats a pop.
if this is 'spam' because it's non-monetary... how do we stop it? because it looks like short of de-incentivizing memecoins it will just keep happening regardless. it takes away credibility from the filter crowd
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @OT 3 May
I understand this hurts UTXO bloat the most. Wouldn't better processing power speed this up over time anyway? There is a limited number of UTXO'S after all.
reply
my point was that this looks like spamming the utxo set because each 330 sat output "represents" a memecoin in their protocol. and there isn't one filterer who suggests how this can be stopped.
if the answer is 'more processing power' then ok but ppl want to run their nodes on low-powered hardware
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @OT 3 May
Increasing the dust limit to 1000 sats would work.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 3 May
Dust limits are mempool policy. It doesn’t affect what can go into blocks.
reply
so... even if standard mempool policy was changed to 1000 sats indicating anything less than 1000 sats is 'dust'...
doesn't that make the current dust situation worse? the current dust outputs of 546 sats become unspendable.
and someone who wants to spend 999 sats (just shy of a dollar) can't. isn't that censorship?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 3 May
doesn't that make the current dust situation worse? the current dust outputs of 546 sats become unspendable.
Why do you think they become unspendable? Again, dust limits are mempool policy.
If I have said anything technically incorrect in this... please let me know thanks.
reply